[dns-operations] Update Mechanisms (was Re: EDNS and TLDs)

[Matthew Pounsett]

On 17 November 2016 at 12:06, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:

>
>
> >  I've always been a little annoyed that no "do not send updates" signal
> was never considered when the UPDATE mechanism was codified.
>
> But how would someone get that signal without sending an unwanted update?
> :-)
>
>
Heh. :)

If the MNAME hadn't been overloaded in that way, and instead we'd used a
new record (I don't think SRV was around yet, but defining things like MX
was still in vogue.. maybe a UX record?)  then the desire not to receive
updates could have been encoded in that record, and the TTL set to some
arbitrarily high value.

Alternatively, 2136 could have defined an RCODE response that indicates
"never send updates here."  The meaning assigned to REFUSED can (and is)
interpreted as a refusal to accept that individual update, and so it's
perfectly reasonable to assume the next update might be accepted.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/attachments/20161117/6d36c26a/attachment.html>